/m/marlins

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

A misleading headline (the fans are being threatened with a lawsuit for not paying for the tickets they committed to buy, not for complaining about the sign) but still this seems like a terrible business decision. It's not like there's a shortage of other empty seats you could move these fans to.

The story leaves a lot of useful stuff out. They have a picture of the view these folks had before the billboard went in but not one with the new view. Also, I assume the Leons are not paying their season ticket bill and that is what they are being sued for. Without seeing how much the view has changed it's impossible to say that they are in the right (though it's Loria so they probably are).

I agree that the obstruction is pretty damn minor, still, they apparently asked to change their seats (Which they believe they could do as part of the contract) and were turned down. Why not just let them change seats and keep them happy?

I wonder if part of the problem is that there aren't comparable seats to move them to. From the photos, these are front row roughly in a straight line with the pitcher's mound and first and third base. Are the fans willing to move back a row? Or further down the line, or to the other side of the diamond?

The "option" to change seats sounds reasonable, but even for the Marlins, I'm guessing front-row season tickets aren't too easy to come by, particularly in this section of the ballpark.

One would think they'd try their hardest to find an alternate seating arrangement, even if there wasn't the sell off and horrid publicity this past offseason. C'mon, how hard could it be?

I just checked for opening day tickets - 2 seats, best possible, and got row 20 behind home plate. How crazy is that? I mean, that is the game everyone wants to go to, even Montreal would get big crowds for that game. It only moves up 6 rows for the 2nd game - normally one of the lowest attended games. Ick.

Just checked, in their last season the Expos got just 14k to opening night. I suspect the Marlins will paper it to ensure they aren't that low, but next year? In 2002 the Expos had 34k for opening night - bet the Marlins don't beat that (would need a near sellout with 36k seats).

The second picture is the new view. The "obstruction" makes the fence maybe three inches higher.

If the drink holders on the wall are at roughly armrest height, then I could see those 3 inches being a big deal for spectators of below-average height. Not view ruining, but enough that you'd have to crane your neck to get a clear view of a close play at third, which is certainly far less than one would expect for 25K.

I'd say the billboard is just an excuse to get out of the contract. The couple doesn't say they can see plays being made. They claim that they have to lean in a bit to see baseball on the ground in foul territory near the fence.

They locked themselves into a package of tickets because the team got a shiny new park and a bunch of shiny FA came to town so they thought they were getting a deal.

ok, how many seat disputes of a similar nature have been posted on bbtf? like fans in pittsburgh at some point didn't feel like they got short shrift? kansas city? seattle? chicago cubs? mets?

don't recall any. why? because clubs, like most other businesses, don't let things escalate to this level because they understand that one customer b8tching to high heaven offsets the many who are satisfied

i think the posters here throwing stones at teh couple are just looking to be contrary. and failing miserably in the attempt

i think the posters here throwing stones at teh couple are just looking to be contrary. and failing miserably in the attempt

Well since this appears to be directed at me, then I'm happy to respond. No, I'm not just trying to be contrary.

First of all, I agree that the Marlin management has done a horrible job at handling this situation. They should have addressed the couple's needs on the quiet and come up with a workable solution.

However, from those photos in the link, the height difference is tiny and I think the couple is being pedantic. If those were my seats, and I'm basing this on the photos, that extra few inches wouldn't make a difference to me at all.

Now if the couple wants to complain about how they sold off all their good players besides Stanton, then that I will listen to.

this couple is not doing their argument any favors by complaining about the quality of the team. It makes them sound like they just dont like the club and the view thing is an excuse.

The other argument I dont understand is they are saying that there is a danger of balls hitting the warning track and bouncing into the stands. But that didnt come about because of the sign did it? I guess they are saying that the sign makes it harder to see line drive fouls coming down the line? But it seems like this would have always been a danger.

1. People pay $25,000 a year for Marlins season tickets??? They should get padded seats, for multiple reasons.
2. How 'bout just keeping those tickets, but when you get to the game, sit in the empty row directly behind your seats. Or the empty row directly behind that one. Or the empty row directly behind that one. Or the empty row directly behind that one...you see where I'm going with this.

but it's not uncommon for seats like that to be recessed down meaning that when you sit down a few inches take you from a clear line of site of the playing field to having your view cropped. (i do not know if that is the case here)

if so then the view shown may not be entirely accurate.

and what if he and she are both short? if someone is 5'6" those few inches make a difference versus if they were 6'

and if the view is cropped then what they mention about foul balls in their direction does become germane.

and again, the marlins have a long history of not being consumer friendly. i think in any dispute between this club's management and a fan one has to put the club in the position of defending their position versus poking small holes in the fan's view of the disagreement.

i also think the couple has been targeted because they are more forthcoming in their version than the club

and if the view is cropped then what they mention about foul balls in their direction does become germane.

Or maybe the raised padding gives them more protection and stops a ball or two that otherwise would have gone into the seats. Any ball they supposedly can't see would be low to begin with, the padding very easily could be a net positive for safety.

However, from those photos in the link, the height difference is tiny and I think the couple is being pedantic.

I agree that they're being pedantic, in that the game view is not materially obscured with the change. The team's path to victory has become obscured, and that's probably a larger sticking point.

But I'll give them this: The change not only raises the padding a couple inches, but it extends it out a foot or two. That will make it harder to see the foul territory, as they claim.

It's also worth noting, however, that the second photo is taken further back from the wall, which alone will obscure more of the foul territory. How much is obscured by the sign, and how much by the photographer's choice, I don't know. But that's not worth figuring out, because they have an excellent view with or without the sign. It's the team they have to view, and the price they have to pay for it, that is the real issue.